Don't know but Samsung are a) number 1 in mobiles, b) number 1 in smartphones, and c) making a lot of money. Is the Note contributing to that? Probably, it certainly is selling well, and Samsung have stuck with it (the Note II, and rumoured Note III), and they are making the S Class more Note like. If bigger phones weren't selling well, and profitable, surely Samsung would be going in the opposite direction.

I don't personally have a desire for a much larger phone (though I wouldn't mind one slightly larger than the 5), and I think the trade-off between screen size and pocketability/one-hand use is important to consider, and understand why Apple has been resistant.

But the important trend Apple completely missed—weirdly, given they're the ones who spearheaded it, with the iPhone—is that increasingly smartphones for many people are pocket computers first, and phones second. When you consider that, it very much rebalances the factors in the aforementioned trade-off. So yeah, I think an iPhone "Plus" or whatever is inevitable at some point, and in fact should have arrived sooner.

Holding something in one hand - e.g. for reading - and *using* it with one hand are two different things.... if you took a moment to actually think about it, instead of leaping to attempt to harpoon Apple with their marketing copy.

The most striking thing about the figures for the Play store was how much comes from the US, Japan, and South Korea; nearly three quarters of the revenue. I can sort of understand South Korea as the home of Samsung, but Japan is as big a market, I'm not sure quite why it is working so well there. My hunch is that it is the old payments issue, which was a huge advantage for Apple in that the iTMS had millions and millions of users with credit card details. Google really need to either sign up loads of people to Checkout, or make sure that gift cards and operator billing are widely available.

No, it's not. It's pointing out that the article linked has no explanation of the data behind the charts or the methodology, and was written by the same company that is trying to sell the market "research". It's obvious that Funktron doesn't understand that Forbes.com "sites" are not trusted sources, and there is no reason to trust the information in this article without looking at how the data was collected.

For comparison, here is an example of an 'ad hom attack':

FunkTron wrote:

Says the Apple stockholder who really, really doesn't like the information presented.

I don't personally have a desire for a much larger phone (though I wouldn't mind one slightly larger than the 5), and I think the trade-off between screen size and pocketability/one-hand use is important to consider, and understand why Apple has been resistant.

But the important trend Apple completely missed—weirdly, given they're the ones who spearheaded it, with the iPhone—is that increasingly smartphones for many people are pocket computers first, and phones second. When you consider that, it very much rebalances the factors in the aforementioned trade-off. So yeah, I think an iPhone "Plus" or whatever is inevitable at some point, and in fact should have arrived sooner.

I'm not convinced that the "big screen computer phone in your pocket" is ever going to be as universal as all that. When I look at the "computer-like activities" that myself and my friends do on a phone there just aren't that many that need a giant screen. SMS, FB, Twitter, search, email. The biggest pain point is typing, but increasingly Siri takes care of that. I can't remember the last time I actually typed out a multi-line SMS.

I don't doubt that Apple will at some point release a large screen device for those who want it. But if the sales figures of the giant Android phones vs everything else are any indication, they won't sell nearly as we'll as their more svelt standard sized iPhones.

Now packing more screen real estate and less bezel in roughly the same enclosure? I think that's a given. I doubt they will update the enclosure for the 5S, but for the 6 I think it's highly likely.

Holding something in one hand - e.g. for reading - and *using* it with one hand are two different things.... if you took a moment to actually think about it, instead of leaping to attempt to harpoon Apple with their marketing copy.

Holding something in one hand - e.g. for reading - and *using* it with one hand are two different things.... if you took a moment to actually think about it, instead of leaping to attempt to harpoon Apple with their marketing copy.

1) That is all of iOS, not just phones. The iPad is going to be a large portion of that.2) Note the ratio through the year. ~10x in January. ~8x in July. ~4.5x in Sept. ~3.5x in Dec. During the course of the year iOS went up about 70%--Android went up about 400%3) Think of how that trend will continue into 2013. Probably by end of 2013 it will be less than 2x.

No, it's not. It's pointing out that the article linked has no explanation of the data behind the charts or the methodology, and was written by the same company that is trying to sell the market "research". It's obvious that Funktron doesn't understand that Forbes.com "sites" are not trusted sources, and there is no reason to trust the information in this article without looking at how the data was collected.

I don't know--sounds exactly like you are attacking the site and not the data...which is exactly an ad hom attack. You have nothing to say about the data, so you are attacking the site.

Holding something in one hand - e.g. for reading - and *using* it with one hand are two different things.... if you took a moment to actually think about it, instead of leaping to attempt to harpoon Apple with their marketing copy.

Says the Apple stockholder who really, really doesn't like the information presented.

That would only be an ad hom if you consider being an Apple stockholder to be some kind of shameful negative/secret.

No. Benhameen has it quite right.

The definition of "ad hom" is pretty simple, but you have to pay attention to the argumentative context at issue in order to understand whether or not an ad hom error is in play. An ad hom error is simply when someone responds to an on-point claim by attacking their opponent, rather than attacking the claim.

People confuse ad hom with being insulting. They are not the same thing. I can post an insult, but if all I'm doing is insulting someone and I'm completely ignoring the ongoing argument, that's not ad hom, it's just an insult. (And, of course, against the PG's.)

Similarly, I can insult, condemn, malign, or otherwise disparage any third-party, but if the point of my disparagement is to cast doubt on the veridicality of a source that the person I'm arguing against brought up, that's not an ad hom. It's an attack on my opponent's argument by way of an attack on the usefulness of their source. If the editor of Forbes jumps in here, identifies themselves and defends their site, and a poster replies to those claims by calling the editor an idiot, that would be an ad hom.

No, it's not. It's pointing out that the article linked has no explanation of the data behind the charts or the methodology, and was written by the same company that is trying to sell the market "research". It's obvious that Funktron doesn't understand that Forbes.com "sites" are not trusted sources, and there is no reason to trust the information in this article without looking at how the data was collected.

I don't know--sounds exactly like you are attacking the site and not the data...which is exactly an ad hom attack. You have nothing to say about the data, so you are attacking the site.

No, it's not. It's pointing out that the article linked has no explanation of the data behind the charts or the methodology, and was written by the same company that is trying to sell the market "research". It's obvious that Funktron doesn't understand that Forbes.com "sites" are not trusted sources, and there is no reason to trust the information in this article without looking at how the data was collected.

I don't know--sounds exactly like you are attacking the site and not the data...which is exactly an ad hom attack. You have nothing to say about the data, so you are attacking the site.

No, it's not. It's pointing out that the article linked has no explanation of the data behind the charts or the methodology, and was written by the same company that is trying to sell the market "research". It's obvious that Funktron doesn't understand that Forbes.com "sites" are not trusted sources, and there is no reason to trust the information in this article without looking at how the data was collected.

Part of your post was very much an ad hominem attack.

The portion in which you disparage the article because it uses a link to Examiner was way out of bounds.

And the idea that because the company is selling its idea the article is not to be trusted would be like saying a press release from IDC is not to be trusted because they're selling that data.

Quote:

For comparison, here is an example of an 'ad hom attack':

FunkTron wrote:

Says the Apple stockholder who really, really doesn't like the information presented.

I can understand the initial reaction to the Note. It was HUGE, and it did look unusual, but that was quite a while ago. Now there are loads of giant phones, and almost every manufacturer now sells one or more giant phones, and even Apple have bumped up the screen size on their iPhone (and they may go further). China is preparing a tidal wave of giant phones, some of them even bigger than the Note II.

The Note is a computer first — a pocket-tablet using Herb Sutter's terminology which I like — and a phone second, and the screen and pen input, and the rest of the specs reflect that. I honestly think that within a couple of years a smartphone with a 5"+ screen will be a very common form factor, and certainly all but the cheapest of phones will have 4"+ screens.

If anyone is still laughing it's probably Samsung, laughing about how they lead the rest of the phone manufacturers and have made a lot of money selling giant phones.

If anyone is still laughing it's probably Samsung, laughing about how they lead the rest of the phone manufacturers and have made a lot of money selling giant phones.

Bingo.

Samsung can't be laughing when Apple makes more money from the iPhone than the entire rest of the industry combined.

Samsung might be happier than Nokia, Motorola, HTC, RIM, etc, but I'm not sure being a distant second place and always worrying that you might get pushed further behind is 'laughing'.

In other words, that would be like saying circa 2006 that HP was laughing about how they lead the rest of the PC manufacturers...

Or Nokia circa 2007! Being #1 in sales is a tenuous thing, all it takes to displace you is someone with similar or better HW and a lower price. That's how commodities work. Apple is looking over it's shoulder at Samsung, and Samsung is looking over it's shoulder at everyone else because it's hard work to stay on top.

Samsung can rely on Google to iterate Android to be competitive with Apple... but cannot rely on Android to differentiate when LG, Motorola, Huawei, ZTE, and HTC can use the same code to be competitive with Samsung.

If anyone is still laughing it's probably Samsung, laughing about how they lead the rest of the phone manufacturers and have made a lot of money selling giant phones.

Bingo.

Samsung can't be laughing when Apple makes more money from the iPhone than the entire rest of the industry combined.

Samsung might be happier than Nokia, Motorola, HTC, RIM, etc, but I'm not sure being a distant second place and always worrying that you might get pushed further behind is 'laughing'.

In other words, that would be like saying circa 2006 that HP was laughing about how they lead the rest of the PC manufacturers...

Or Nokia circa 2007! Being #1 in sales is a tenuous thing, all it takes to displace you is someone with similar or better HW and a lower price. That's how commodities work. Apple is looking over it's shoulder at Samsung, and Samsung is looking over it's shoulder at everyone else because it's hard work to stay on top.

Samsung can rely on Google to iterate Android to be competitive with Apple... but cannot rely on Android to differentiate when LG, Motorola, Huawei, ZTE, and HTC can use the same code to be competitive with Samsung.

I stand to be corrected but Samsungs profits are only going up, up and up. So of course they are laughing.

If anyone is still laughing it's probably Samsung, laughing about how they lead the rest of the phone manufacturers and have made a lot of money selling giant phones.

Bingo.

Samsung can't be laughing when Apple makes more money from the iPhone than the entire rest of the industry combined.

Sure it can. This isn't the NFL playoffs where the only team that wins is the one standing at the end.

Quote:

Samsung might be happier than Nokia, Motorola, HTC, RIM, etc, but I'm not sure being a distant second place and always worrying that you might get pushed further behind is 'laughing'.

It's a constant, neverending theme of "if you aren't doing it like Apple, you're doing it wrong."

Well, Apple used to not do it like Microsoft, and Microsoft was killing Apple - who was still laughing because it did well by its own standards and not that of the one company that took off like gangbusters.

And then... It took off like gangbusters.

Maybe Samsung will be next. Maybe not. But "a distant second place" is far too simplistic a manner by which to describe this situation, in my opinion.

Quote:

In other words, that would be like saying circa 2006 that HP was laughing about how they lead the rest of the PC manufacturers...

This analogy isn't close to the mark. The smartphone market at this stage in its lifetime isn't analogous to the PC market well past its maturation cycle.

Quote:

Or Nokia circa 2007! Being #1 in sales is a tenuous thing, all it takes to displace you is someone with similar or better HW and a lower price. That's how commodities work. Apple is looking over it's shoulder at Samsung, and Samsung is looking over it's shoulder at everyone else because it's hard work to stay on top.

This I agree with.

Quote:

Samsung can rely on Google to iterate Android to be competitive with Apple... but cannot rely on Android to differentiate when LG, Motorola, Huawei, ZTE, and HTC can use the same code to be competitive with Samsung.

Which is fine, because Samsung clearly has differentiated on its own through software and hardware that is unique to its experience.

Maybe another company makes a move that pushes it into Samsung's realm, too - that's fine, better for all of us, IMO.

What evidence do you have that the lack of a pure Google experience is grating on users?

The evidence is of the sort I cited -- more anecdotal than not, but potentially influential anecdotes. I keep running into articles where reviewers prefer the base Google function. Maybe regular consumers aren't noticing or caring, they probably aren't right now or at least not showing up with pitchforks to demand it, but this is happening often enough that it might well represent a trend that shows up in product contents. Reviewers often lead demand, in other words, in this kind of area.

Widespread preferences of this sort have a way of winning out over time in an area like this,too, if the reviewers are representing or leading demand. Third party extensions to base functionality of just this sort is always something under stress precisely because it isn't standard.

When you read those articles, they're typically by power users who love things like "direct filesystem access" and the "ability to change the default app for various filetypes". Those are just not mainstream sorts of comments, and the numbers, notably Samsung's dominance, back that up. If consumers care about the N4 it's likely more for bang/buck on hardware than anything about the "pure Google experience". As far as consumers are concerned, the main implication of a truly "pure Google experience" would be "zero user support".

um, samsung's phones let you change the default apps and access the filesystem. Hell, they have more filesystem access than the nexus (MSC USB mount). And samsung is the largest smartphone vendor in the world in one recent quarter. So if anything, samsung being dominant _strengthens_ the position that people desire open systems.All samsung android phones support sideloading, changing defaults, intents, filesystem, 90% have microSDXC USB OTG/USB Host and removable batteries, (all this without rooting) and most also support an easy root & bootloader unlock.Compare with apple where none of their phones support those things.And samsung is the #1 smartphone vendor for one recent quarter. I'm not saying it's because of openness, but its certainly not an argument AGAINST openness.

I think, too, we have to distinguish between types of openness. But, it is also getting to be clear that Apple leans towards a very firmly closed system in about as many aspects as possible and Android leans the other way.

Open source versus closed source does not impel things like sideloading or exposed, cross application file sharing (which is what is a key use of an "exposed" file system and the one I've always regarded as the most important piece of it).

For instance, Android could have existed without any official sideloading which would then only happen with rooted systems and other outright hacks. But, in fact, you can enable and disable it from its "settings". Apple, likewise, could add ordinary cross-application file sharing (other than through dumb means like the cloud) in any number of ways even now. But, it doesn't.

The divide is almost like a morality play between them, though again, it didn't have to be so.

Presumably, MS has yet another set of trade-offs between "open" approaches and "closed" ones.

For instance, Android could have existed without any official sideloading which would then only happen with rooted systems and other outright hacks. But, in fact, you can enable and disable it from its "settings". Apple, likewise, could add ordinary cross-application file sharing (other than through dumb means like the cloud) in any number of ways even now. But, it doesn't.

The divide is almost like a morality play between them, though again, it didn't have to be so.

1) How is the divide like a morality play? Apple supports a closed system because the business model they've chosen requires that they maintain strict control of the end to end experience. Google supports an open system because the business model they've chosen requires they achieve scale, as big as fast as possible to be able to capture a large amount of users, allowing them get as much user data and advertising reach as they can. I don't think any of this has to do with morals in the slightest.

2) Looking at the Play chart that etty posted, the case could be made that Google's openness is going to become a serious problem if emerging markets' "picking Android's lock" becomes a common situation; China has already done this as they have zero need for any of Google's services, and I've seen a small number of local Indian OEMs begin to ship Android devices without Play as well. Not sure how far this will go though since there aren't many markets that have complete replacements for Google's services: China, Russia, India, and a number of Asian countries if Baidu's expansion plans continue at the current pace that it is.

But I think it does the discussion a disservice to emphatically state that Android's openness is a boon, full stop. There are strategic flaws in that position the same way there are for Apple's closed approach (which we're seeing now with the clear necessity of a lower priced iPhone). I don't believe there is a "right" or "wrong" answer to this: both companies chose the approach they did based on the business model they are good at, both have achieved wild market success, but only one has translated that approach to the benefit of their bottom line as well.

But the fact that the lion's share of Android's growth comes from "Others" with that same group representing a far smaller portion of Play's revenue is something that should be a red flag for Google. It suggests that either users in these emerging markets aren't engaging with any ecosystem (highly unlikely), or they are doing so just not through Google's ecosystem. Openness has it's problems too, namely when you're trying to monetize something.

And samsung is the #1 smartphone vendor for one recent quarter. I'm not saying it's because of openness, but its certainly not an argument AGAINST openness.

I wasn't making an argument against openness. If you actually read what I wrote, you'd see I was pointing out that the "pure Google experience" (i.e. what Nexus devices offer but Samsung devices don't) has essentially nothing to do with Android's popularity, and that the sort of arguments one sees on the 'net favoring the "pure Google experience" (ie favoring Nexus over other Android devices) aren't very consumer-relevant.

WTF! The Magazine is, you know, a magazine. Yo have no basis to judge the Magazine on (like most things you snipe about on here). Butt out!

And neither do you have any basis to judge it on, nor the author in question. Like always you treat your opinion like it is anything more than just your opinion, or as if you are some authority on stuff.

Even by magazine standards it is poor. Try the New Yorker, WSJ (yeah), The Economist, and many others.

No, it's not. It's pointing out that the article linked has no explanation of the data behind the charts or the methodology, and was written by the same company that is trying to sell the market "research". It's obvious that Funktron doesn't understand that Forbes.com "sites" are not trusted sources, and there is no reason to trust the information in this article without looking at how the data was collected.

Part of your post was very much an ad hominem attack.

The portion in which you disparage the article because it uses a link to Examiner was way out of bounds.

Only if you don't understand what the Examiner is. They, like the Forbes.com "Sites", let practically anyone publish on their site. So the reader needs to be more careful about verifying their conclusions, which you failed to do.

Quote:

And the idea that because the company is selling its idea the article is not to be trusted would be like saying a press release from IDC is not to be trusted because they're selling that data.

So instead of admitting you linked a bad article, you're doubling down on the stupid.

The difference between IDC and "Prosper Insights and Analytics" aka "BIGinsight" aka "Prosper Now" is that IDC has some credibility built up over years of data. They're correct more often than not, and they actually describe their methodology and data gathering practices.

The article you linked shows none of their data, and there's no link to a press release or something similar with it. It's nothing but a couple charts with no source, and you're claiming it as something close to gospel.

Quote:

But your argument was spurious, for reasons explained.

Prove it. Show the data behind the article, and explain why we should trust it coming from a relatively unknown company. Here's your chance to take me down peg.

Because until you can show the data and explain why it's valid, then the only reasonable conclusion is that this is a shit article that should be ignored.